In my previous post I argued that critical scholars who insist that the Gospels are not historically accurate accounts of what happened in the life of Jesus – even though they do contain some historically accurate information, which needs to be carefully and cautiously ferreted out of their narratives – are not trashing the Gospels. They are trashing unfounded fundamentalist assumptions about the Gospels. In this post I’d like to argue that this view — that the Gospels are not sacrosanct-historically-accurate-to-the-very-detail accounts of what really happened in the life of Jesus — is not merely a modern notion that emerged during the Enlightenment. It is that, to be sure; but it’s not merely that. In fact, I would argue that this is the earliest attested view of the Gospels from earliest Christianity.
Let’s assume for this argument a view that most scholars hold and that I could demonstrate if I wanted to spend a lot of time doing so (for example here and here), that Mark was the first of our Gospels and that Matthew and Luke both had access to Mark. If that’s what we think (and it’s what “we,” speaking with the “royal we,” in fact do think, along with 99% of the biblical scholars on the planet), then we can ask: did the authors of Matthew and Luke consider Mark to be in inviolable, sacrosanct, completely accurate account of what Jesus said and did?
The answer is obvious – so obvious that it’s amazing that it’s never struck most readers (including most of us scholars! It didn’t strike me for about ten years after starting to read the Gospels carefully). Of *course* they
Even when I was a Christian, I never understood why God needed 4 tries to get the gospel right, if it’s divinely inspired
Bart.
Has any fundamentalist ever dealt with something that would strike me as quite odd if I were a believer in “inerrancy”: why did not one of the four writers of the gospels describe or explain the *process* by which he was able to record without error the ministry of Jesus?
I know the 4 writers all claimed that their gospels were true and accurate accounts, and that Jesus was the real deal etc., but none claimed that some force suddenly entered his body, made him pick up a implement,
and compelled him to write down things that previously were never in his mind and that had been suddenly revealed to him, did they?
Surely such “divine direction” would be the *first thing* you’d inform a reader of your gospel of.
Hey, if you’re speaking the absolute truth you don’t need to explain how you know it!
Before even Mark, there were the letters of Paul, who made no mention of a miraculous birth or a bodily resurrection. The late Bishop John Shelby Spong referred to biblical literalism as “the Gentile heresy.” He believed the authors of the canonical gospels were Jews who knew full well that they were not writing historical accounts. But in just a few generations, the Jewish Christians had been expelled from the body of orthodox Jews and Gentile converts made up the majority of the new religion. The Gentiles had little or no background in the Jewish scriptures or Jewish literary forms, and read the scriptures as literal accounts. Or tried to, anyway; doing so is virtually impossible.
Excellent, Dr E.
Holy cow! why did I never think about that. Excellent
” … was Jesus in shock and not understanding why he had to die, wondering why God had abandoned him?”
I understand and accept your argument that this is how Mark describes Jesus’s death. And yes, it is very different from what other sources (such as Luke) say. What I find hard to understand is how Christians, especially conservative Christians, reconcile such fundamental differences. Would you agree that in this example it is mostly Mark’s version which is being distorted by conservative Christians?
Most Christians would say that both accounts happened and that they are simply emphasizing different things. In my mind, those who say that are ignoring whateach one wants to say. And yes, my view is that most interpreters don’t think Jesus really was filled with terror and doubt at the end; maybe it was just a show?
when I was younger I used to sweat as drops of blood.
“and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.”
What a powerful observation! It always surprises me how something that seems obvious after someone shows you, was not obvious in prior readings using different interpretive frameworks.
I’ve been interested in New Testament scholarship and the history surrounding the Bible and early church for years. I love your podcast with Megan as the host and this blog is just a wealth of scholarship.
Having grown up in fundamentalism within the Charismatic/Pentecostal branch of Christianity, along with being homeschooled as a youth within these belief systems, I’ve had an interesting journey out of those viewpoints through a careful, considered examination of the human condition, scholarship regarding the Bible, and what the study of science and history can teach us.
And I want to thank you for helping me along the journey towards a more examined life.
You’re not alone. I was homeschooled in a fundamentalist Christian home and it has been a roller coaster as I learn what scholars have to say about these things. I’m hoping that my mind can tell my heart that the fundamentalists interpretation is inaccurate and I am not risking eternity in hell. I envy those who do not feel this when learning about these things.
What would it have physically looked like for someone like a Luke to copy, redact, and edit a Mark? Does he have two scrolls in front of him? Or 3 scrolls if there is a Q? How are the scrolls held open? Is there a special table for this?
We don’t really know, except to the extent that it does not appear that ancient scribes, at least, used desks, but wrote on their knees. My sense is that Luke had a copy of Mark and a copy of Q and possibly other books sitting in front of him somehow. He had read these books numerous times and so had a good idea what was in them, and was using Mark as the one from which to construct his own account, filling in here and there with the sayings and stories from other sources as he thought appropriate. Whether he had marked up his copies of these sources to indicate where insertions would be made is an interesting question.
Would you agree that by modern standards Matthew and Luke were plagiarizing Mark?
Did the ancients have any concept of plagiarism?
Thanks!
They definitely had a concept of plagiarism and discuss it on occasoin, even though most New Testament scholars apparently don’t know it — the book “The Five Gospels” claims that no such idea existed. Yikes. Too bad NT scholars don’t read more ancient literature! Some authors (Martial, e.g.) complain vociferously about plagiarism. BUT, Matthew and Luke wouldn’t be cases of it. Plagiarism in antiquity involved taking someone elses words and claiming that they were your own (just like today). But Matthew and Luke are *anonymous*. They aren’t claiming any words are their own, because they don’t say who they are. That is, they are not falsely claiming ot have authored the words, writing them in their own names instead of attributing them to the correct name, because they are not naming themselves (and the source they were copying didn’t name himself)
Bart, I love answers like this one, explaining the historical context, which is so often radically different in antiquity than modern minds conceive. So thought provoking!
But one thing you left unanswered, and I’m interested in your teaching/academic view, would Matthew and Luke be considered plagiarism by *modern* standards?
If an authjor took an anonymous uncopyrighted writing and reused a number of its sentences in her own writing without giving any indication who she herself was? I don’t really know? There are some legal experts on the blog: maybe one of them can help us out here.
OK I do see the distinction you’re making. This does raise another question. Do we have other examples from ancient history of anonymous authors using other anonymous authors in the same way Matthew and Luke use Mark?
ot exaclty like Matthew and Luke, I suppose. We have later Gospels that are anonymous that use all the Gospels like that a bit, though not to the extent of Matthew and Luke. I wsa on a dissertation committee a couple of years ago for a Duke student who argued that this kind of copying practi e never really happened much in narratives in the Roman world, but in certain kinds of techincal writing. You do get something similar in the OT, though, in 1 and 2 Chrnoiles in relation to 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings.
Interesting lines of thought. How would the fact that this kind of approach to ancient narrative was so very rare weigh on the discussions as to whether Luke knew Matthew? What are the chances that two authors would use the same rare narrative device, writing about the same subject, but independently of each other?
I wish we knew. Luke says he had many predecessors, so it’s hard to know whether that was what they also did or not. The problem is that we have such an infinitesimally small number (a very low percentage) of books that were actually written in antiquity,
Currently I see the gospels as representative of an emerging Christian identity…and Luke and Matthew were embarrassed by what Mark represented. They wanted a sufficiently ‘dressed up’ biography of their Lord. Of course they also wanted to ‘set the record straight’, though in ways that were always extremely convenient to them and their communities, of course.
..and this is precisely why I value rigorous academic scholarship. Thank you !
Sorry for asking something off topic.
My place celebrates Lorenzo as a patron Saint. Wikipedia says that Lorenzo was a deacon to Pope Sixtus II. Lorenzo was entrusted with church treasures, which he distributed to the poor.
When the church asked him for this treasure, he brought the poor to them and said:
Here, this is your treasure!
And of course they executed him on August 10, today, 258. CE.
They roasted him on a stake. He even asked to be turned the other way, because it is already cooked on this side!
Constantine legalized Christians only in the 4th century, so Christians were illegals at the time of Lorenz’s death, and the money given to him for safekeeping was a Church treasure.
Does this mean that the Church condemned him and executed the sentence!!??
That story implies that the Church at that time cooperated with the state in preserving its wealth!!!??
Saint Lawrence is said to have been martyred during the raigh of the Emperor Valerianm, the first emperor actually to make being a Christian a capital offense. The tradition is that Lawrence was the treasurer of the church in Rome. When he knew the soldiers were going to arrest him and make him turn over the funds of the church, he distributed all of them to the poor, so the authorities could not collect them. When asked for the money, he brought for those who had received it. It was teh Romans then who executed him (in a rather gory way, involiving a heated grid iron). At least that’s how I understand it.
Knowing that not all scholars agree, would you suggest that when scholars do agree, the general public should accept that view and move on?
My general view about scholarship is that everyone should agree with me. And, in fact, that’s the view of every scholar (about their own views) 🙂
Mark has Jesus heal the leper then enter capernaum and heal the paralytic.
Matthew has Jesus heal the leper then enter capernaum to heal the centurion’s servant.
Luke has Jesus heal the leper then heal the paralytic (but without mentioning capernaum). Only later does Jesus enter capernaum to heal the centurion’s servant.
Isn’t the coincidence a bit too big here for the two source hyp? Matthew would keep Mark’s setting in capernaum but change the healing recipient to be the centurion’s servant. Luke would coincidentally remove just the setting of capernaum and place it to match Matthew’s setting for the centurion’s servant later on.
Doesn’t griesbach handle this better? Mark just combines Matthew and Luke’s account.
Well, Griesbach certainly thought so… Offhand, I don’t think I know of Synotic scholars today who agree with the Griesbach hypothesis, though I’d be amazed if *someone* didn’t! My teacher Bruce Metzger used to say that the four-souce hypothesis (Mark is first; Matthew and Luke used Mark along with Q and M and L) was the “least problematic” view because even though it didn’t solve every problem, it solved more than any other hypothesis. That means there will be problems still, but not nearly as many as with other theories. In this case, Matthew and Luke have both edited Mark’s story about the leprd and hava also both heard about the centurion’s cservant and located the story in different parts of Mark’s narrative , while change other part sof Mark as well.
I think there’s only one real problem with griesbach – why would Mark remove so much material?
But when Mark’s main objective is understand to be the removal of controversies and the creation of a gospel that everyone can agree on I think that problem disappears.
Don’t know of you’ve read any scholarly analyses of hte Griesbach hypothesis and its problems, but if not, you’d be interested in them. Off hand I can’t think of anyone who is not persuaded by them. That doesn’t make them right, but it does make them worth looking at and considering.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
I’m going into my second semester of Ancient Greek at the moment! Do you have any tips that helped you when you were first learning (especially with principle parts).
Thank you so much!
Massive concentration and repeat repeat repeat…. The more you work with it, the more it’ll be embedded in your head. And once you start dpoing some serious translation, read as much as you can. It helps to write the principle parts repeatedly, and say them out loud.
Also: hang in there! It never gets easy but it does get less crazy difficult!
I concur, not that my position or status offers much compared to yours.
In my ministry training we were alerted to concerns, or issues, with the text. They might be historical differences or major alternatives from one passage to another, but we should remain fixed on the real issue to hand – what did the congregation believe. Hence, when alerting the congregation to the fact that major differences exist between Matthew and Luke’s understanding of the Nativity scene – in my first year of ministry – many were upset that their understanding of ‘Christmas’ had been materially changed. I would strongly argue that we do need to question the text in front of us, highlighting concerns and allow those in the congregation to ponder and wrestle with the differences. The addition by Matthew of Peter on the water, compared to Mark’s account, is a good point.
Thank you. Keep pushing us from the comfortable into the uncomfortable places.
Bart, the NET footnote on Luke 1:3 says:
“When Luke says it seemed good to me as well **he is not being critical of the earlier accounts,** but sees himself stepping into a tradition of reporting about Jesus to which he will add uniquely a second volume on the early church when he writes the Book of Acts.”
It’s interesting how the lens completely changes the text, since at first I read it with your blog’s implication in mind, but then after reading the footnote it made more sense to me considering the connection to the book of Acts.
What’s your rebuttal to that? and thanks for your time.
He indicates that he needed write his account so Theophilus would get an “accurate” version, in the face of other ones available. That does sound like he thinks the other accounts were not up to par. If they had been up to par, there would have been no need for him to provide an “accurate” one. Moreover, and even more significant, the fact htat he changes the one account we know he had (Mark), sometimes in radical ways (e.g. getting rid of all indicatoins that Jesus was in deep agony oging to the cross, and even all the indications in Mark that the death of jesus was an atonement — a rather important point), clearly shows me, at least, that he did not think Mark’s account was accurate in (many?) places.
Hmm, can you point to me where I can read the translation that says “get an ‘accurate'” version? The word “accurate” is damning proof of your point, but I don’t see that implication anywhere. From cross examining my go-to translations (NET/NRSV) plus others for extra measure, non of them seem to imply that Luke is suggesting he’s providing an “accurate” version. To me, they all suggest Luke is grabbing the torch in the tradition of sharing the gospel as his testimonial contribution.
To play devil’s advocate a bit, he does say “so you can know the truth,” so perhaps you’re interpreting that statement as synonymous to “get an ‘accurate'” version? If so, please confirm? If not, can you elaborate where you got the word “accurate” from?
Also, just to pick your brain a bit, wouldn’t “so you can know the truth” also imply the same process of a judge questioning witnesses on a stand to analyze their different testimonies for compelling proof? Historians compile and examine evidence, therefore this is Luke’s unique recollection adding on to those who swore an oath before him with his right hand on the Bible (metaphorically speaking)…does that make sense to you?
Thanks again for your time.
Right. It’s in v. 4: ἀκριβῶς καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι, κράτιστε Θεόφιλε, 4ἵνα ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν. (I have decided) to write to you (about these things) accurately in order, most excellent Theophilus, so that you might know the ‘secure truth’ about which you have been instructed.” ἀκριβῶς means “accurately” as opposed to “inaccurately. καθεξῆς means “in sequence” as opposed to out of order. ἐπιγνῷς … τὴν ἀσφάλειαν means “that you might know the security (i.e., know accurately, know the real meaning of…)
These opening four verses of Luke are often considered the most stylish Greek of the NT and are difficult to put into clear English in anything like a succinct statement. Off hand, I’n not sure which translations to send you to!
Ahh okay, I see your point. Thanks for that! But, granted, let’s say your notion on Luke’s implication is accurate (pun intended lol) … wouldn’t that just detail a classic example of the telephone game? Since nothing significant changes anywhere in the gospels? Which you’ve acknowledged yourself on numerous occasions that even with the telephone reception being fuzzy the foundational message remains the same…
Earlier you said:
“Moreover, and even more significant, the fact htat he changes the one account we know he had (Mark), sometimes in radical ways (e.g. getting rid of all indicatoins that Jesus was in deep agony oging to the cross”
But, when I read verses like,
• Luke 22:42: “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”
• Luke 22:44: “And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.”
–– to me, that sounds like agony… lol
then you said: “and even all the indications in Mark that the death of jesus was an atonement”
— but Luke 22:19-20 and Luke 24:46-47 clearly describe His sacrifice for our sins, which is atonement… isn’t it?
Thanks again for your time.
I don’t think I’ve ever said that nothing significant changes from one Gospel to the next. On the contrary, I’d say they are very different in places — hugely significant.
The two passages you point to in Luke are key, for a reason most people don’t realize. The manuscripts provide different ways of wording these verses, and as it turns out, the very words you quote are *lacking* in some of them. I’ve talked about both extensively on the blog to show why precisely these words were not original to the text of Luke. If you’d like the full demonstration, I give it in my book The Orthodox Corrution of Scripture.
I meant to say that you’ve acknowledged how there’s LOTS of variants and SOME significant changes (or “contradictions”), but even with all of those in consideration, the foundational message still remains clear… (Son of God died for our sins and resurrected on the 3rd day as predicted in Isaiah 53, belief in the Son gives eternal life, etc.) is that not an accurate statement? I definitely don’t want to hold an incorrect notion about your views so please let me know if I’m wrong there… but I’m pretty sure you’ve taken that stance several times where you mention how even though the underlying message remains, all the scribal contradictions and suffering in the world made you step away… right?
And ok nice! I already added most of your work to my wishlist but I wasn’t aware of that book, going to add that now! looking forward to it.
As always, thanks for your time.
It depends. The foundational for what or whom? Different authors have different views. The Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, for example, remove the idea that Jesus’ death brought an atonement. And no where in the NT does an author quote Isaiah 53 in support of the idea that “Jesus died for our sins” (that is that his death brought an atonement). Later Christains started using the passage that way (and of course modern ones frequently do).
The differences in the manuscripts did not make me leave the Christian faith; I knew all about those while I was still a Christian.
hmm…you said:
“no where in the NT does an author quote Isaiah 53 in support of the idea that “Jesus died for our sins”
But, the New Testament extensively references Isaiah 53, supporting the belief that Jesus’ death brought atonement for our sins. A prominent reference occurs in Acts, where Philip addresses an Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah 53:
In Acts 8:32-35, Philip encounters the eunuch who reads Isaiah 53’s depiction of a silent lamb led to slaughter. The eunuch asks if it refers to someone specific, prompting Philip to explain how this scripture relates to Jesus and the atonement His death provided.
Additional New Testament passages that connect Isaiah 53 with Jesus’ atoning sacrifice are:
1. Matthew 8:16-17: Matthew literally cites Isaiah, specifically 53:4, to show that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy by healing the sick and casting out demons, highlighting the connection between Isaiah 53 and Jesus’ redemptive mission.
2. 1 Peter 2:24-25: This passage alludes to Isaiah 53:4-6 with verbatim quotes, emphasizing how Jesus bore our sins, leading us to righteousness and healing, much like straying sheep returning to their Shepherd.
These New Testament references underscore the early Christian understanding of Isaiah 53, emphasizing that it pointed to Jesus’ role in atoning for humanity’s sins…
How would you rebuttal that?^
Thanks again.
Yes, those verses are sometimes mentioned, but the precisely DON’T quote Isa 53 to syupport the idea of Jesus’ atoning death.
1. Acts 8 quotes the part of Isaiah 8 that does not say anything about the death of the ssevant being *for the sins of others.” Even thought those ideas are conveyed in the nearby verses of Isaiah 53. (Strikingly, Luke has also removed all indications of Jesus’ death being an atonement from the material he borrowed from Mark. Notice, e.g., that he does not include the saying of mark 10:45!
2. Matt 8 uses Isa 43 as a prediction that the messiah would heal peole during his public ministry; it is not talking about the crucifixion.
3. 1 Peter 2 is the closest thing, and it does indeed appear to allude to Isaiah 53. But it doesn’t “quote” it. That is, it precisely doesn’t do what modern Christians do, who say “The atoning death of Jesus was predicted in Isaiah 53.” The author of 1 Peter uses language that is reflecting Isaiah 53, in what looks like some kind of poetic creedal statement, but he never references th eprophet and says that this is a fulfillment. See the difference?
These points I’m making have long been a source of puzzlement among NT scholars. I remember I was surprised to hear them for the first time in graduate school. I was *certain* that the NT writers must have appealed explicitly to Isaiah 53 to refer to the atoning death of Jesus. But, well, nope!
You mentioned, “but the precisely DON’T quote Isa 53 to syupport the idea of Jesus’ atoning death.”
But, Isaiah 53:5 does mention an atonement for death. So, any NT reference to Isaiah 53 in connection with Yeshua’s prophecy inherently includes verse 5, which states an atonement for His death… How would you rebuttal that?
1. Isaiah 8? If you meant Isaiah 53:8, then Acts 8:32-33 quotes Isaiah 53:7-8 verbatim. Verse 8 states, “For he was cut off from the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people.” (NSRV). So I’m not sure how you’re discerning that conclusion if you can clarify?
Regarding Luke 22:19-20 and Luke 24:46-47, you mentioned they are inaccurate, and exact citations in your book for further explanation would be appreciated (not to dismiss the book as a whole which I look forward to reading, but just for time sake to address my question). Meanwhile, both passages seem to teach atonement… and both Mark 10:45 and Luke 22:27 are parallels, emphasizing Yeshua’s role as a servant among His disciples, teaching them about humility and servanthood. Is servanthood that much different than a ransom? Someone sacrificing their time, effort, wellbeing (and glory) for others?
(1/2) see next comment…
I don’t think it works like that. If I quote Mark 3:1, “He entered a synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand” I probably quote it because it is relevant to something I’m talking about. But I wouldn’t expect that someone would conclude from my quoting it that I thought necessarily meant to imply that Jesus family thought that he had gone out of his mind (Mark 3:21). If someone wanted to emphasize that his family thought he was crazy they’d quote the relevant verse, not the irrelevant one.
Hmm… your comparison isn’t the same though…
Mark 3:1-6 is about Healing a Withered Hand
Mark 3:7-12 is about Crowds by the Sea
Mark 3:13-19 is about Appointing the Twelve Apostles
Mark 3:20-30 is about Jesus and Beelzebul
All of those excerpts are different stories being told in the same chapter. Isaiah 53 is not written that way, it is the same story in the whole chapter… so how is that comparable?
My view is that a passage like Isa 53 may have influence 1 Peter. But 1 Peter is not QUOTING Isa 53. And if you want to see which part of an OT passage a NT author wants you to think about, you look at the parts he either quotes or clearly references, not other parts of the same passage, which he may or may not have had in mind.
(2/2)
2. Regarding Matt 8:17, the NET footnote says: “A quotation from Isa 53:4.” – and upon checking myself, it’s exactly that, verbatim… lol so please elaborate?
3. Hmm, I’m not seeing the difference.. the NET footnotes say 1 Peter 2:24-25 is indeed quotations from Isa 53, and upon checking myself, once again it’s exactly that, verbatim… literally lol and 1 Peter 2:21 does imply a fulfillment, saying to follow in His steps, and then quotes Isa which is referencing the prophet. How would you rebuttal that?
as always, thanks Bart! Really appreciate this dialogue…
A quotatoin is when you indicate that you are drawing the words/statement from somewhere else. E.g., “The other day, Obama said…:
or “As a wise person once said….” I have no difficulty thinking the author of 1 Peter modeled his understanding of Jesus’ death on a number of OT passages, including Isaiah 53. But he never refers to the sources of his allusions.
I understand where you’re coming from regarding the word-for-word criteria required to be considered a “quotation” … but isn’t that not how historical analysis works? I’ve heard you say “History is not science, we can’t rely on replicable experiments to prove the conclusion – we have to consider bits of every clue available to try to piece together the truth” (I’m Paraphrasing) … so with that logic, wouldn’t you agree 1 Peter 2:24-25 is definitely referring to Isaiah 53?
• 1 Peter 2:24 says,
He himself *bore our sins* in his body on the tree, that we may cease from sinning and live for righteousness.
Isaiah 53:4 says,
Surely he has *borne our infirmities* and carried our diseases; yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted.
Then, in Isaiah 53:12,
…yet he *bore the sin of many,*
• and ends with 1 Peter 2:25 saying,
For you were going astray like sheep…
and Isaiah 53:6 says,
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have all turned to our own way,
Wouldn’t professional historical analysis conclude that 1 Peter 2:24-25 (those verses specifically) are without a doubt referencing Isaiah 53?
Yes, these verses are restating Isa 53 for a new situation. Isa 53 has shaped the way this author conceives of Jesus. But the verses are not being quoted the way they get quoted today, when people say: Isaiah 53 is predicting the suffering messiah to prove that Jesus is the messiah based on an OT prophecy.
I have to confess that I am a bit of an agnostic towards History and when it comes to figuring out what really happened. However, biblical criticism such as yours enlivens my encounter with Christianity rather weakens it. Drawing out the contradictions, fissures and fractals of the biblical literature forces me to struggle with the texts more deeply and captures my interest. Your idea here that the Gospels themselves are wrestling with one another in order to come to terms with the events of Christ is thought-provoking. I have not merely one Gospel but Four fractured narratives that force me to contend with them. Such critical thinking has not dissolved what little faith I actually possess, but paradoxically perhaps, has me considering a return to the Roman Mass. Your critical scholarship among others, Dr. Ehrman, has shown me how endlessly interesting the biblical literature can be, and that has led me to re-engage with the texts.
Curious, why the Roman Mass? Have you tried a Protestant church yet?
My Mother is Roman Catholic and my Father was Baptist. I have never felt an attachment to a Church other than the Roman. I have great respect for the history of the Orthodox Communion, especially because I know Russian, but the Eastern Rite does not speak to me on that deep, preconscious level.
The Christian Who Wanted to Go to Heaven
A Christian man, conversing with other Christians, said he is going to heaven when he dies. The other Christians said, “How do you know?”. He replied, “Because the Bible says Christians go to heaven”. The others replied, “That is not so, the Bible only tells people how to be saved on Judgment Day”. The Christian man then asked, “How do you know if you’re going to heaven or hell?”. The others replied, “you only find out after you die”. The day came when the Christian man died, and he went into the afterlife. There he encountered Saint Peter in front of the two giant gates. He said to Peter, “Wow, I made it to heaven”. Peter asked him, “How do you figure?” and the Christian man replied, “Because everybody knows that Saint Peter stands guard at the gates of heaven”. Saint Peter said, “That’s right” and the man replied “So, what’s the problem?”. Peter said, “No, you don’t understand. As a saint, I have the power to be in two different places at the same time. Today, I stand guard at both the gates of heaven and the gates of hell”.
Ouch.
Interesting. It seems “ouch” is a good response to the harsh theology coming out of the Abrahamic religions (which the story is satirizing). Recently, I’ve started watching some YouTube videos on people leaving Christianity. In the videos, I’ve learned this process is sometimes referred to as `deconstruction’ and the whole process of leaving their religion is quite traumatic. Some of the stories are horrific. It makes me thankful to destiny, fate, whatever, that we had a basically non-religious upbringing. So, I’m curious. What, in your opinion, is the most pernicious thing in the Abrahamic religions? And in organized religion more generally? This is something I’m starting to take a deeper interest in, and I’d love it if you had a blog on this topic.
The most pernicoious thing in my view is how these religions have traditionally been used to oppress people they oppose — women, gays/lesbians/others of various sexual and gender identity, those of other religions, “false” believers in their own, etc., leading to social ostracization, and even torture and execution. Really discusting, in my view. Then again, people who believe in ostracizing, torturing, and executing the “Other” would have done so without religoius justification if the religions didn’t exist; I see religion as the excuse rather than the cause.
First comment after a couple of years’ absence: Bart, I’m looking for resources on pre-Pauline concepts of salvation in the earliest church. Specifically, did pre-Pauline Christians think of salvation as being related to eternal life per se? Or did they still think in traditional Jewish terms, such as Jesus being the one who would “restore the kingdom the Israel?” (Acts 1:6). Were some of them expecting Jesus to return in their lifetimes to liberate Israel from Roman rule, rather then thinking of him as a spiritual savior who would liberate them from death and sin, as Paul thought?
They appear to have been Jewish apoclayticists, like Jesus himself, who thought that salvation meant being delivered at the end when God brought destruction to all who opposed him (living and dead) but brought his followers into an eternal kindom. I deal with these ideas a good bit inmy book Heaven and Hell.
Ane welcome back!
Bart, your revelation to us of an obvious truth almost everyone fails to see is a perfect example of what makes the content of this blog as rewarding as its charitable mission. I think it can truly be characterized as an “eye opener.”
Being reminded of the many ways the canonical gospels differ got me wondering about the many non-canonical ones. Is there any such lesser-known gospel that does NOT paint “the Jews” as villains while whitewashing Pilate and the Roman role?
That’s a great question. I can’t think of an example. (The emphasis gets *heightened*: Gospel of Peter, Acts of Pilate/Gospel of Nicodemus, Pilate Gospels… can’t think of any exceptions offhand….)
Brilliant analysis.
I’m more skeptical of it all, if we look at New Testament like they are all separate scholars who had their own bias to make stories fit what they believed. It would been nice to have some non religious scholar around same time period to add a perspective on Jesus stories that wasn’t from religious bias, I also find it odd that none of people saved or healed by Jesus have a story passed down that was published at some point are there any? Just saying if I was healed or was revived from the dead I would made sure the story was passed down in history. Sorry for my grammar I’m not educated but I love history.
I’m more skeptical of it all, if we look at New Testament like they are all separate scholars who had their own bias to make stories fit what they believed then all we got is peoples personal interpretations. It would been nice to have some non religious scholar around same time period to add a perspective on Jesus stories that wasn’t from religious bias, I also find it odd that none of people saved or healed by Jesus have a story passed down that was published at some point are there any? Just saying if I was healed or was revived from the dead I would made sure the story was passed down in history.